Monroe wrote:
Fulop's problem with the reval will get worse if JC is forced to pay for 25% of its school costs, as per this bi-partisan push for equality in school funding.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/ ... la-must-changed/85343328/

Monroe wrote:
Fulop's problem with the reval will get worse if JC is forced to pay for 25% of its school costs, as per this bi-partisan push for equality in school funding.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/ ... la-must-changed/85343328/

SOS wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.

I do expect cacophony of wails and moans probably in November of 2017 as the property owners in the downtown open their new tax reassessments... backdated to the beginning of the tax year.

Boohoo, we Downtowners have to pay ~1% more on property that has appreciated 400% in 20 years. Do we seriously expect to see any years coming where the property Downtown will appreciate at less than 2%? I don't, at least on average. The entire tax is paid for.

And just to be clear above the smoke, the expected rate of ~2.1% is not high for northern NJ, it's average, maybe even on the low side. It's the 1% that some people were gloating over that was the anomaly.

We are so lucky to have the jclist intelligentsia that have agreed that 2.1% will be the new effective tax rate. But no matter how many times it is repeated, it's still wrong. 2.5% best case scenario. If you can't afford 2.5 - to 3%, consider a contingency plan now.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The best retort to what I have written is "fear mongering", really?
SNIP
If you do not think a redistribution of the tax base, whereby some tax bills will quadruple overnight, will wreck havoc on the local economy (e.g. foreclosures), you are sadly mistaken.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
an immediate Reval (as opposed to a more sensible, one time phase in)

Does such a thing exist?

The state should hire a revaluation company if Fulop does not put our a bid soon. Then deduct that money from any funds JC receives.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
IIRC, a state pilot in Monmouth County, 20%/yr over 5 years, to be done in perpetuity (no gap between revals).

terrencemcd wrote:
Quote:

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
an immediate Reval (as opposed to a more sensible, one time phase in)

Does such a thing exist?

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
an immediate Reval (as opposed to a more sensible, one time phase in)

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
The best retort to what I have written is "fear mongering", really?

If the 90% Sanders or 10% Cruz tax plan were to take effect tomorrow as in overnight, would that not throw the national economy into chaos?

And how about raising the minimum wage to $15/hr overnight? Oh wait a sec, New York and Cali are doing so, but progressively over a number of years. So why do you think that is so?

If you do not think a redistribution of the tax base, whereby some tax bills will quadruple overnight, will wreck havoc on the local economy (e.g. foreclosures), you are sadly mistaken.

Let's be clear, I am not arguing what is fair or whether or not there should be a revaluation.

Rather, what I am stating is that there should be some flexibility or a middle ground offered by the State Treasury. There should be a *one time* exception for long overdue municipalities like Jersey City to do a reval in stages. I do not propose a specific solution for what stages means; I'll leave that up to others to debate.

However, one thing is clear, if you make large/sweeping tax changes, overnight, whether it be locally or nationally, it will have some rather large unintended and perverse consequences.

The current reval law/dictate is bad for ALL of Jersey City. It is counterproductive. A staged/phased-in reval is the smart thing do.

JPhurst wrote:
Purely political? No. Some politics? Perhaps.

It eventually had to be done. Sure, you could say that with development in Journal Square and other areas, the mayor would have liked to push things off to "even it out" a little bit. But it was going for way too long and even if the deviation was decreasing it could not be delayed for whatever time was necessary for it to even out. And on top of that, downtown properties would still likely be more highly valued.

The Mayor will take the political hit, for better or for worse. And now as this happens you have opportunists piling on with issues like abatements and school funding.

But it had to be done, and from both a practical and political perspective, sooner would have been better than later.

Monroe wrote:
Purely politically motivated'? Nonsense, the state picked the top three worst offenders-one of which is run by Republicans. Pray tell, what does Christie have against the Mayors of Dunellen and Elizabeth??

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.

I do expect cacophony of wails and moans probably in November of 2017 as the property owners in the downtown open their new tax reassessments... backdated to the beginning of the tax year.

Boohoo, we Downtowners have to pay ~1% more on property that has appreciated 400% in 20 years. Do we seriously expect to see any years coming where the property Downtown will appreciate at less than 2%? I don't, at least on average. The entire tax is paid for.

And just to be clear above the smoke, the expected rate of ~2.1% is not high for northern NJ, it's average, maybe even on the low side. It's the 1% that some people were gloating over that was the anomaly.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

stateaidguy wrote:
...This is something I've said before, but for some of the towns who haven't done revals since the 1980s it isn't such a violation of good government, since properties have generally appreciated at uniform rates throughout the jurisdiction. So Westfield hasn't done a reval in a generation, but Westfield's Coefficient of Deviation is really low anyway and thus few people are being taxed unfairly.

Jersey City's disparity in property values among different areas of the city - or the coefficient of deviation - is decreasing at an increasing rate since Fulop has taken office. This is the worst possible timing for a reval in JC. Purely politically motivated. Also, be on the lookout for trolls based outside of JC that post on jclist, providing seemingly neutral and beneficial information, that also happens to benefit Sweeney.

stateaidguy wrote:
...This is something I've said before, but for some of the towns who haven't done revals since the 1980s it isn't such a violation of good government, since properties have generally appreciated at uniform rates throughout the jurisdiction. So Westfield hasn't done a reval in a generation, but Westfield's Coefficient of Deviation is really low anyway and thus few people are being taxed unfairly.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.

I do expect cacophony of wails and moans probably in November of 2017 as the property owners in the downtown open their new tax reassessments... backdated to the beginning of the tax year.

Frinjc wrote:
For sale signs seem to have percolated up recently from what I have seen though I may be misreading typical end of school activities.

Ralph_Abutts wrote:
You do not understand the implication of increasing taxes *radically high* for some overnight.

Those who receive an immediate tax reduction or no reduction from the tax reval, it will be short lived.

In the long run, they will subsequently lose some or all of such savings, permanently, in perpetuity, in the form of a higher tax rate and in turn a larger $ tax bill.

Frinjc wrote:
If the reval has significant impact on property values whether up or down, I wonder if the reval company will have a formula to anticipate it preemptively. That way the tax rate would remain the same for all owners. Otherwise we are back to unequal distribution after a few years due to people selling/appealing etc.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.

I do expect cacophony of wails and moans probably in November of 2017 as the property owners in the downtown open their new tax reassessments... backdated to the beginning of the tax year.

brewster wrote:

The foreclosure talk is scaremongering plain and simple.